BERNARDINO QUITORIANO AND RAMON VELASCO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ROQUE M. CENTENO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal taken by the defendants
from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Sur, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“The complaint is hereby sustained. Judgment is
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to comply
with the terms of the contract Exhibit A, and therefore the defendants
(plaintiffs), are declared to be entitled to two-sixths (2/6) of all
the property described in the complaint, by virtue of which they have
the right to intervene in the proceedings in civil case No. 2649, In re Estate of the deceased Anselma Centeno, of this court, without special pronouncement as to costs.

“The plaintiffs’ claim for the sum of P2,000 and the counterclaim filed
by the defendants are hereby denied on the ground that no evidence has
been presented to that effect. So ordered.”

On August 5,1930, Cirilo C. Purugganan instituted in the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Sur special proceedings No. 2649 entitled
“Estate of the deceased Anselma Centeno” and prayed that after the
publications required by law, the will and codicil executed by the
deceased, be allowed to probate. The herein defendants, with the
exception of Juliana Centeno y Pablo, were nephews and nieces of the
aforesaid deceased but they were not instituted heirs nor legatees in
the will and codicil in question. For this reason they agreed to oppose
the probate prayed for. Inasmuch as they did not have money to pay
attorney’s fees, they executed the following written contract with the
herein plaintiffs, to wit:

“We, Librada Centeno, Luisa Centeno, Roque Centeno
and Urbana Centeno hereby declare that, because we impugn the probate
of the will and codicil presented by Cirilo Purugganan in the Court of
First Instance, we have authorized Attorneys Ramon Velasco and
Bernardino Quitoriano to act as our counsel in civil case No. 2649, In re
Estate of Anselma Centeno; and in view of the fact that, we have no
money to pay their fees, we have bound ourselves to the said two
attorneys, Messrs. Ramon Velasco and Bernardino Quitoriano, to the
effect that, if we win the case, all the property which may belong to
the deceased Anselma Centeno shall be divided into six parts, so that
each and every one of us may have equal shares, in other words,
one-sixth thereof shall be given as fees to Mr. Bernardino Quitoriano
and another one-sixth shall be given as fees to Mr. Ramon Velasco; that
is, two-sixths of the property which we might inherit will be given to
the said attorneys as their fees for services rendered in this case.
Our undivided share in the properties belonging to us and our deceased
aunt Anselma Centeno, which are situated in the municipalities of
Narvacan, Santa Maria, Candon and Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur, and our
share in the lot north of Washington Street, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, are
excluded from this contract.

“In witness whereof, we,
together with the aforesaid attorneys, have hereunto affixed our
signatures this 16th day of September, 1930, here at Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

(Sgd.) “LIBRADA CENTENO	(Sgd.) “LUISA CENTENO
(Sgd.) “ROQUE CENTENO	(Sgd.) “URBANA CENTENO”

Pursuant to the above-quoted contract, the plaintiffs, in
representation of the defendants, appeared in the testamentary
proceedings and opposed the probate of the said will and codicil. After
due trial, the court denied the probate prayed for and the estate of
the deceased was placed under administration. The defendants,
notwithstanding the above quoted contract, the services rendered by the
plaintiffs and the favorable result obtained in the testamentary
proceedings, refused to comply with the terms of the contract in
question and to give them their shares agreed upon. Such attitude on
the part of the defendants gave rise to the institution of this action
by the plaintiffs.

The defendants assign no less than a dozen alleged errors as
committed by the trial court in its judgment appealed from, not one of
which, in the opinion of this court, has any merit.

There is no question that the contract is genuine. The fees of the
plaintiffs as agreed upon, are not excessive if it is borne in mind
that they were contingent fees and that the result of the plaintiffs’
efforts was favorable to the defendants. This court, taking into
consideration the value of the hereditary estate, is not inclined to
declare such fees as unreasonable. The plaintiffs earnestly and
successfully impugned the will and codicil and due to their loyalty and
efforts, the defendants succeeded in participating in the property in
question. Had the opposition failed, no doubt the plaintiffs would have
obtained no remuneration at all and their entire labors would have been
in vain.

The contention that Librada Centeno’s husband did not participate
in nor sign the contract is of no consequence. However, the said
defendant’s husband was the party aggrieved and it was he, not Librada
Centeno, who could properly attack the validity of the contract. The
contract involved property belonging to Librada Centeno and no anomaly
was committed when her husband failed to intervene in the contract for
fees. At any rate, it would seem unjust and immoral that Librada
Centeno herself should now impugn her intervention and personality
after she had voluntarily and knowingly signed the said contract.

The proven facts do not in the least justify the defendants’
contention that the contract signed by them does not express their true
intention or will. The original was drawn up in Ilocano, a dialect with
which each and every one of the said defendants is familiar.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the
costs of this instance against the defendants-appellants. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Hull, and Goddard, JJ., concur.